“Q. Why do you see this case as so important?
A. This is obviously a terribly important part of our economy, but
it also seems to be an important question as to whether we will in
fact continue to dedicate ourselves to vigorous enforcement of the
antitrust laws in new technological areas. And it’s especially
important it seems to be in the software industry, where
competition issues are going to be vitally important.”
“Q. You are convinced then, Microsoft is a dangerous
monopoly?
A. I am fully satisfied, and I think most reasonable observers are,
that Microsoft enjoys a monopoly in the operating systems market
and that is the appropriate market under the law. I am further
satisfied, based on the evidence at trial and the judge’s very
carefully articulated, very comprehensive findings of fact that
Microsoft abused that monopoly power. That is, as Judge Bork has
been saying all along, is the core of this case, the abuse of
monopoly power so as to destroy budding competition and that most
dramatically is demonstrated in the Netscape story.
“Q. Microsoft has positioned this case as an attempt to regulate
the software industry. What do you think about that?
A. It’s quite the opposite. In fact, I think one of the advantages
of this particular remedy that Judge Jackson has fashioned is that
he has not set himself up or any other judge up as a software czar.
He is not the czar of the industry, but rather he is following the
kind of structural remedy that No. 1 is called for in the antitrust
laws and antitrust principles, and secondly is conceptually and
analytically clean in terms of fostering the competitive
environment.”